Hacker News Reader

I know plenty of amateur musicians who love what they do and have spent their entire lives making music, but will never reach a professional level

I was thinking about that the other day as well and I believe it has something to do with some form of goal oriented activity behavior. Or at least a distinct process of continuously "rising the barrier". Otherwise it becomes like saying "we are walking every day so why don't we end up all being marathon runners when we turn 40".

In my view it takes a certain kind of competitive mindset that combines being dissatisfied with ones own skill set and having an intrinsic motivation to become better, adjusting the skillset to the top performers in the field and at the same time portraying to the outside a level of confidence in the skill, in order to reach the true heights of a pro.

Just as an anecdote, a friend started playing the guitar in high school and he loved it and played constantly. However, he never reached a level at which he could be considered an expert despite his incessant playing.

What did happen is he eventually hired an expert to teach him, and well into his 30's he's improved his playing significantly, now that he's focused his playing into actual practice. I think that's the key difference in this discussion.

> no one could stand spending 10,000 hours doing something they truly suck at.

I think that's an important notion people tend to overlook. Doing something you are naturally good at is enjoyable, and doing things you're naturally bad at, is not. This is less apparent when you're just having fun, like singing karaoke with friends, playing guitar at campfire, playing sports recreationally, etc.

But when you set a conscious goal of being better than most other people, and notice that after hours/days/weeks of deliberate practice, you are still not as good as the more talented people with little practice, it becomes pretty hard to maintain motivation and optimism.

If you set a goal to be better than most people, you're just setting yourself up for failure. The world is a big place. Instead of focusing on how much worse than other people you are despite working hard, look back and see how far you've come.

There is a spectrum from recreational hobby, casual pursuits and being an expert. And if your goal is to be an expert, it basically means you have to be better than most.

In music theory class years ago, we asked our professor how he was able to sight-read on the piano so easily. His explanation was that the music consists of lots of reused patterns and ideas, and once he mastered those patterns, he could recognize them in the score and it became much easier to play the piece without rehearsing it first.

I know nothing about the piano but this sounds exactly the same like reading any language. At first you have to struggle to recognize every single letter, but after enough practice you can identify whole words immediately and later even whole phrases.

> I know nothing about the piano but this sounds exactly the same like reading any language.

That's because it is the same. Music is effectively just another language; it's been theorized to be a neurological prototype for language, in fact.

You have to start with really simple things. When you can sight read a grade 1 piano book, move on to grade 2. Doing written theory homework also helps, because it forces you to think about all the little details and it means your fluency goes up. I really don't believe this is about talent, it's just difficult in the same way that learning to read English is difficult. Also stopping and starting is a no-no, and recording yourself and analyzing where you slipped up helps too. Really, if you want to do it, I'm sure it can be done, but you probably need a better approach.

Maybe I didn't make this clear enough. I grew up in a household with a piano teacher and could play simple Bach pieces from an early age. I studied organ for four years. On my senior recital, I played this very difficult piece: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtA_6lIhKWY I have achieved some skill on the keys, and spent a lot of time doing it. And still I can only sight read basic things. Like a four part hymn is basically the limit of how much information I can process in real time.

Contrast this with a musician I work with regularly who can sight read from an orchestral score WHILE TRANSPOSING. I could work my whole life and never be anywhere close to what she can do.

Look, I've had people tell me before that they're sure that I'm just not practicing right. Just because certain techniques work for you doesn't mean they will work for everybody. I have a whole lifetime of data that says that things that are relatively easy for other people are very difficult for me.

My piano teacher had me practicing sight reading very specifically. I don't know if that's important, perhaps? I was able to sight read just barely well enough to get the certificates, but I've never been able to do it honestly, or play by ear. And back when I still practiced, I was a fairly decent pianist.

People really wish this wasn't true, and they wish it so badly that they continue to fool themselves into believing there is no innate talent. It's basically Wizard's First Rule at work.

How quickly people forget the whole "Blank Slate" fiasco in the field of psychology. Certain proclivities, likes & dislikes, and yes, talents, are innate. It is not such terrible news ... you can still accomplish a hell of a lot in a direction of your choosing by dogged, deliberate practice.

Well, what is your method for improving your sight reading? Have you thoroughly addressed all of the training aspects described in the Wikipedia article on it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sight_reading

If you want to make some point about talent, obviously the best way to do that is to be resistant to improving your practice. If you genuinely want to be better at sight reading, then obviously it's going to conflict with your beliefs about talent.

So, you're in a bit of a jam if you want one or the other, but I'm pretty sure the explanation for competent sight reading ability is not all talent (nature) or all practice (nurture). Even the research quoted in the article I linked to says it's a combination of a strong working memory combined with lots and lots of practice.

If you're admitting that talent plays a role, then we are in agreement and I'm not sure what you're arguing against. I'm arguing against the 10,000 hour rule, which attempts to discount or minimize the role of talent in one's ability to develop skill.

Over the years I have practiced keyboard sight reading in various ways. I own this book and practiced with it for a while: http://www.amazon.com/Speed-Reading-Keyboard-Edward-Shanaphy... And sure, it made me slightly, marginally better. But contrast this with sight reading as a singer, which I have always been good at without even trying. I have never had to specifically practice sight reading as a singer, and yet I've always been better at it than most people.

The 10,000 hour rule isn't much of a rule if for every counterexample you say "you weren't trying hard enough."

Oh I was just reacting to this part of your post:

> I strongly believe that no amount of time at the piano will make me a good sight reader. I believe I could get marginally better, but I will never reach the level of even an average pianist.

So, in the absence of technique problems, I think you can become an average sight reader. I think it's much harder to say whether you can become an excellent sight reader. Seriously, if you have classical piano books at home, just start with every piece in the grade 1 or kindergarten book, then the grade 2 book, and so on. Usually sight reading 2 grades below your playing level is a reasonable end goal. It can be boring to play those simple pieces but it's the most effective method in my experience.

Perhaps you are good at sight singing simply because you are a singer, and if you were a pianist in the same way you are a singer then your sight reading would improve. Perhaps you don't need or want to be good at sight reading, in which case there's no point in pursuing it.

I'm not denying your experience of one being easier for you than the other, but I'm also not convinced that you have 10,000 hours of piano sight reading practice, so I guess it doesn't strike me as a counterexample. How many hours would you say you had for each of singing, sight singing, piano playing, and sight reading? If it's really 10,000+ hours each, I'll eat my hat.

"And while this is somewhat true, it gets the causation backwards. It was obvious to me from a very early age that I was better at sight reading as a singer, so I spent more time doing it."

This is self-refuting really. You admit that you spend a lot more time on one skill and then report that you are better at that skill and are hopeless at the one you tinkered with.

K Anders Ericsson, who is one of the sources of the research on this speculates somewhere (I can't recall of the top of my head where), that there are very likely extremely small marginal differences in initial aptitude, but that these alone are enough to garner praise and tiny edges in performance that are self-rewarding to the practitioner and that these advantages make them more likely to continue with the work required to get better. That's not natural talent, if it's true, that's just a minuscule advantage that may help foster interest and practice and lead to better skill.

> K Anders Ericsson, who is one of the sources of the research on this speculates somewhere (I can't recall of the top of my head where), that there are very likely extremely small marginal differences in initial aptitude

This is incredibly disconnected from reality. This is the sort of theory you come up with when you want reality to reduce down to something simple and elegant.

I understated my experience when I used the word "tinkered." I studied organ at a collegiate level for four years, and gave a senior recital that ended with this piece: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtA_6lIhKWY I've spent plenty of time at the keyboard. And yet I can still barely sight-read four part hymn writing.

Let me give you another side of the equation: someone I sing with frequently has to work really hard to get all the notes right. Every time we sing a concert she has to get the music in advance, practice it for hours beforehand, whereas I just show up at the first rehearsal and sing it. We've both been doing this for a long time, and she is very skilled at actually singing and loves doing it. But she has to work really hard to get the same results that I get by hardly trying.

This idea that it's all about how hard you work is just that: an attractive idea.

agreed. i'm the same way. while i can sightread slowly, it hasn't improved much despite 25 years of trying. my ear on the hand has gotten to the point that i can listen to something once or twice & sound it out quickly with with 95%+ accuracy. basically my brain was 'pre-wired' for processing one type of information efficiently and another, not so much.

there was an episode of startrek TNG where on this planet they'd analyze kids' dna and figure out what particular talents they had & they'd put extra emphasis on developing those. i'm sure we're heading towards such a future and it has interesting ethical implications. i also wonder how many mozarts are regularly born to plumbers and never get a chance to reach their potential.

Totally. I also feel like telling kids that they can do anything with enough work is kind of self-defeating, because then you can get your heart set on something and be disappointed when you just hit the wall of natural talent.

I feel like what we should tell kids is: the things that seem easy to you now are things you'll probably always be good at (though you'll have to work harder the better you get). The things that seem to come hard will probably always be a challenge (though that's no reason to give up if your heart is really set on it).

I actually just the opposite of sight reading. I think it is a very learnable skill in my experience. Most people I know who study can actually get drastically better over the course of a couple of years.

Playing by ear, OTOH, is much more difficult.

Natural talent may help some. But I can't think of many skill related activities where 10,000 hours of deliberate practice won't make you an "expert". Maybe not the best in the world, but good enough that virtually any layperson would call you an expert.

For me, playing by ear is much easier.

Perhaps it is due to our different talents?

Or perhaps due to differences in the way you deliberately practice?

I don't deliberately practice playing by ear. I also don't deliberately practice sight reading as a singer. And yet I am good at both, better than most people.

I absolutely WAS there when it came to sight reading; able to play songs on the piano with a lot of practice, but not able to sight read, despite years of lessons and practice. It largely comes down to studying the songs before you play, looking for the key, patterns, and difficult parts, and keeping your eyes a measure or two ahead as you play